mona_chrome

As I read all of this, I wondered if there was any thought to the fact that this photo seems to be more about the woman and the place, not just the place. Had the spire--we assume there is one there-behind the woman's leg been visible I believe this photo would have lost focus and become very busy with the large, probably white, spire pulling us from our focus on the lady's shoes and the spires in the left center.

 

I also noted that this photo nearly demonstrates a bit of a problem with this type of photography with wide angle lenses. Had the framing been a bit more generous at the top, we might have had more information that we wanted about this woman!

Oh and altho I don't like cropping another's work, I think "Willie" is on to something with the left side crop--make this about the tree, we don't need that space over there to pull us out of the composition.

When I looked at this photo early in the week two things jumped out at me. First, I have seen this shot before, this particular Japanese garden shot is probably more common than copies of any of Ansel's photos! That said, it is nice except..... Second, why was it so blurry?? All this has been said here already and I think Marc makes some good points. Here I also have a hard time believing this would look great in a large print, but I am sure many would love it at the right price.

 

What seems to be a major flaw of the image itself is the green in the lower left corner that intrudes on the frame. Since you work in photoshop already, this would be an easy clone and would strengthen the image immensely, along with the elimination of the blur effect.

My first blush with seeing the thumbnail was that this was a nice fashion image, but when I opened it, it started to fall apart a bit.

 

My problem with this is chronicled above and relates to the fabric. First, it feels as if there is just too much fabric that doesn't belong there--it appears this is not all dress, but added fabric--whether it is or not is irrelevant, it is either a bad choice of dresses or a not so skillful attachment. The fabric around the body, still attached, looks messy. The blowing fabric behind the head looks natural and has a nice flow, but around the waist and butt becomes very distracting and just seems, again, added. What bothers me maybe the most, altho by just degrees, is the column of fabric going up and out of the frame in front of the model. This looks like it was hung there, above the set, hoping something good would happen--it didn't. Essentially, I feel that the photo, due to the fabric, has lost all sense of being organic and has become forced.

 

The thing for me, and goes to my feeling that one should post only their best, is that this feels like a test shoot that really didn't work--an experiment to be refined over time with the information gathered. I say this because some of the still shots with this fabric in your portfolio are very nice. You do seem to have an eye for styling and composition, but it feels that that was subordinated here to effect a test--which is totally valid and important to do, and keep, in private. Maybe you were excited about the good things in the shot and just didn't see that the flaws were so great.

 

It would be great to see you refine your technique here and post one that lives up to the quality of the bulk of your work.

I think that your statement "I'm not saying this is what my camera captured, but this is what I saw." is believable, but not the dune.

I love the graphic quality and color here. Your framing is nice, except that I somehow do feel that I want a bit more at the bottom. I realize that more probably doesn't include only a "bit", but I wonder if there is a way to get some. It just feels truncated to me like this and it is feeling that images convey, but still pretty nicely seen.

Mehmet, I have photographed for many years in Death Valley and have been in these dunes and dunes in many other places and never seen a formation like this. I have also never seen such an isolated dune anywhere--generally dunes roll from one into another, separated by valleys, but never in such an isolated way. Also,it is so thin and upright that it feels much more like a photoshop creation than a natural formation--does sand have that kind of adhesion characteristics--never in my experience?!?

 

You have some wonderful photography and I really don't mind embellishments in post, but this one just doesn't feel right.

for me, this photo just seems so sterile. I have no criticism as to the handling of the light, the composition or such, it is just that things are too perfect and it really ends up not saying too much to me.

 

It feels like a commercial set up, but without a direction as to what emotion this is trying to convey and no "point of view". The man with the violin is so perfectly arranged that he shows no emotion in his face or body, as one expects from a musician who is engrossed in his play. The set is also too perfect. The perfectly aligned objects on the window ledge can happen, but seems like an unimaginative set up.

 

Again, I have no complaints about the technical aspects of this photograph, it is just that it is too staged and sterile. I think this photographer has other photos, out of the studio, that show more of a personal point of view and style, while this feels like an exercise.

Obviously, this was a very nice scene and one that most would probably like to have experienced. A cool morning, fresh snow, up at dawn and romping in nature. But was the experience captured on film--errrr--pixels?

 

When I look at a photo, I try to figure out what was trying to be said by what has been presented--then, I visit the portfolio to see if there are any other hints that either confirm my feelings or that will help shed light on what is in front of me.

 

Here, my first cut was that the treatment of the color (I love to post process color to bring things out and to accentuate my "feeling" of the moment), with the blanket of warm light, was that there was a very claustrophobic feeling that had been created, instead of the morning crispness that I would have expected. This is ok, I guess, and my uneasiness was further enhanced by the central placement of this obtrusive railing. Since there are so many other ways to effectively use such an object, rather than centering it, I felt that there was an intent here. Maybe this image was made about frustration, oppression and generally being prevented from doing something we would like to do, like "getting into" and enjoy this glorious morning.

 

Of course, upon looking at the portfolio, I didn't see any hint that such a use of nature and the landscape was in the photographer's vocabulary. So, I was left with the thought that opportunities were lost here, both in the composition and in the post processing. Compositionally, rather than finding a way to use the railing to help push the viewer into the image, it has been placed as one would do a road barricade--in the middle of the road. In post, the warm color has been accented in the lower portion rather than clarified to lift the blanket that creates a very muddy feel. Because the snow covered bushes are so warm, a cooler push might have really helped to create some local contrast that would have clarified things. In a photo like this, I think you have a choice on how you push the color in the foreground, cool(ambient sky/shade) or warm(light reflecting from the clouds). Either would have been believable, but here, the choice just depressed the image. Moving cooler would have clarified it and you would not have lost the warm glow in highlight areas.

 

In any case, sometimes a visceral moment in nature should be left as an experience.

As I look at this photo, I am reminded of a campaign that Nike did in the mid 90's, all shot very similar to this (I am VERY familiar with that campaign!)

 

In any case, this is a much more relaxed version of those images and i like it in black and white. This has the feeling of being much more of a reaction to what was happening than having been a planned shot. This is not a qualitative statment, just an observation--a little more spontaneous might be a better way to say it.

 

But digressing to a discussion of manipulation or not and thus the merits of an image seems a bit problematic for me. If the photo looks manipulated, even if it is not, that seems to be a more valid critical position than one where it is manipulated, but looks natural and believable. My eye and my visually stimulated emotions really have no bias except to the elements it sees and experiences. It is mental perturbations we engage in due to our biases about manipulation that start this whole type of debate. I guess, in an analysis of an image, I think it is always better to critique what is in front of us rather than a mentally created reality, which truly is not about the success of the image at hand.

 

As to the image, I do like the spontaneity and play, but otherwise just am left a little flat as I do not feel the photo is saying anything--where's the beef?

As I looked at this and read some of the other comments here, I wondered if I am just too hard on peoples' photos, but then I realized that I am no harder on theirs than I am my own!

 

Here, we have a scene that I know I have viewed in several documentaries and magazines, but one that is interesting and still evokes many feelings to a westerner. This photo is well designed and probably has the potential to be very goodt, but I suspect that the post processing was just not attended to as well as it could have been.

 

My main problem with the image is that the very thing that makes it all the more "dangerous" and interesting to me, the people, are relegated to almost unrecognizable form--more "stuff" on the truck instead of precarious human cargo. Yes, that is somewhat the point, from our Western perspective. One might even argue that the blending of all the people also harkens to the "loss of individuality". If that is the maker's intent, then maybe this is the right presentation.

 

For me, tho, I would prefer to have seen the individuals just as I see the individual bags piled on to precarious heights. Now, there just ssems to be a black cap or tarp on the top of the pile--the people have been treated differently than the baggage, probably not the point here! I think this treatment of the people probably diminishes this photo against the many others out there of similar subjects. This is a shame, as this is so well designed otherwise.

 

I read at the top here, this was originally a color photo. I don't see this other version in Dieter's portfolio, but there is another shot with a similar subject. In that shot, we can see the many different tones and variations in the passenger clothing, which is all missing here as they blend into one another. What I am left with here is the feeling that a conversion to black and white was made with attention to the overall tonality and with no attention to where the people fell. Overall, the tonality is wonderful, but I think the people deserve a separate b/w conversion, some dodging and/or some other effort applied to separate this "cargo" into individual elements.

The viewer's left of this image seems to be taking some hits, from me as well as others. This can easily be explained as personal preference, or one can take the next step and look at the elements of the image and see the objective reasons that supports one's own visceral reaction!

 

There is nothing about this image that portends this subject is emerging from the background. There is just blending, texturally, with it and she is parallel to it. Possibly some transitional transparency or body movement more perpendicular to the plane of the background would have rendered a different conclusion. The waist is there, but the area near the top has been obliterated into the background. There is no sign in the torso of a twist that would have buried her into the background or a stretch that she has raised her hand above her head or behind her back--the skin is at rest, everywhere! So, where is the hand/arm and why is the body disappearing? This only matters if it is something that bothers you and, unfortunately, it did create a very awkward feeling to me. This may just be a personal bias, but I hope explaining the basis of the reaction is more valuable than not.

 

Again, I found the image to be very appealing at first, but there are just a few things that detract from it upon the longer view--for me!

My first look at this photo was very positive. I liked the tone, the "hazy" feel and the earthy texture and tone. But, as I started to look closer, things started to fall apart for me.

 

First, altho I like the blending with the background in a general way, I think it is overdone on the viewer's left. The body disappearing into the background just does not work for me. I want at least a hint of the shape left here. This is exacerbated by the fact that the hand and arm on this side are also absent, but there is no indication, body stretched etc, that the hand is risen or pulled behind the model. This leaves the absence of an arm feeling very awkward.

 

Second, I have mentioned attention to styling before and here, what seems very small, the fingernails, just do not fit this "vintage" photo. They feel too modern and too done (and shiny) for the way this photo was shot and treated.

 

As a general comment on the maker's portfolio, I feel that it needs to be segregated into styles. Right now, it is a very confusing display of intent and style. There are wonderful examples of straight photos, seen very well as to color and design and then there are photos with this or that texture--all in all, a bit too jumbled up. I believe this would help the viewer and also the maker to start to understand what they are doing and what should be done to improve the whole.

Overall, I find this a very attractive photo. There is nice clarity while a mood of an

encompassing atmosphere is conveyed. The color cast of the image adds to the feeling

generated by the haze in the sky and just seems to impart a hot and very humid feeling to

me--maybe just warm now, but later.....

 

Although I am attracted to the image I also feel a slight sense of imbalance and possibly

some stasis here. I have been trying to determine how these two things are possibly

influencing each other. I just feel that the boat is a bit close to the bottom and that it is

too centered there. The combination of the two seems to break the rhythm this image

wants to express. I actually have no problem with someone centering things, I am just

having a hard time reconciling this with the overall use of line in this photograph. The

placement of the elements ends up giving a bit more weight to the left side of the image,

causing the imbalance. Part of me feels that it would correct itself if there was just a bit

more room at the bottom.

 

I will say that I see a lot of near/far compositions that don't work and that don't seem to

understand the use of the technique--this is an example, as has been pointed out already,

of it being done very well.

 

Again, overall, a very nice photo.

Derek may address how he achieved this look, but I believe one comment above might be misleading as to how one might achieve, or improve, this look. Since no one has addressed it, I thought I might, since this is a learning site.

 

The use of softboxes would not be able to achieve this look, the quality of light they generate is not what is need to create the defined shadows and transitions found here. The Hollywood photographers from the 30's and 40's, this style, used large fresnel lights(focused light) and reflected floods. All very hard light sources. It is true that softboxes can be used to create a dramatic photo, however, the transitions and shadows are never like this--they are soft. The light is much more enveloping than the light sources that can create this effect.

 

If anyone is interested, google William Coupon (renowned for his one softbox portrait work of Presidents and Celebrities) to see what a dramatic softbox photo looks like--which is nothing like this, to be sure.

My first response to this photo is that it is basically well done. The light is right for this "Hollywood" style photograph(old Hollywood) and I don't see anything that has gotten out of control tonally.

 

Although I do think it is a nice photo, styling in these types of shots is so very important. Here, the makeup is near flawless. Her left eyebrow seems a bit too pasted down, but the rest looks very good. There is a bit of a breakdown with the hair, however. It is a nice amateur styling, however, the break on the forehead makes me think about bad comb-overs! This is a flaw that is really hard to let go. There are some other things about the hair that are weak, but might be overlooked if the forehead had been done right.

 

An issue I am struggling with in the pose is the fact that the eyes are so different, as if we are seeing her at the start of a wink. The right eye-her right-if you look at only that half of the photo, is a bit of a "deer-in-the-headlights" look. Her left eye is a bit more alluring and what has been referred to as Bedroom eyes. This incongruity causes me a little pause.

 

Overall, the lighting and makeup are very good, but I think the hair styling really let this photo down.

I like this photo illustration very much. I believe there is a nice concept behind it and that it is finished/processed very well. This particular piece feels more commercial in nature than some of the others, but I believe the technique and style, as a whole, does have commercial potential.

 

There many nice images in your photo art folder, but I do think that a further breakdown of that portfolio would be of value to you in seeking work--keep the pure photo manipulated scenes separate from the ones that combine illustration and photos--just sends a clearer message to people that might hire you.

For me, I think this shot, although interesting for it's subject in an absolute way, falls short

in several ways for me as a photo. First, I don't think this is a particularly unique photo.

We see lots of predatory photographs where birds are the prey. This might be ok,

however, the photograph suffers from the vagaries of the light. Because there are so many

shots out there like this, birds getting whacked-as it were, I think it needs to be stronger

in all aspects as the subject, alone, does not carry it into "specialness". For me, the 3

Wildebeest photos are much more interesting.

 

This is not to say that I would not have taken a shot like this if it presented itself to me,

but I don't think it is one that I would show (hang in a gallery as a representation of the

quality of my work) if I knew I were capable of shooting shots like the wildebeest photos.

I might include it in a slideshow of my trip to this area, but it would never be in my

portfolio.

It might be fair to say that certain comments might not help a photographer, if one is

thinking only technically. But a photograph is supposed to communicate and if it doesn't,

the artist should here it. And, just because it doesn't communicate to one or two people,

that input is only important if it rings true to the photographer.

 

Eirik seems to be a technically good photographer. The only valuable technical advice that

I see is to talk about what bothers us, not what could/should be done. I don't presume to

be that knowledgeable, but I know what doesn't work and what does work, when I see it.

I do not find problems, generally, even on

screen, with the way he has handled the tones. In fact, it is this handling of tones, focus

and such, that made me feel that I was looking at a photographer who is interested in the

"equivalent", not the subject. I would not crop it or even suggest it--it would take away

important elements that build upon each other here, but I don't like titles like this--too

flowery for me, so I just ignore them. But the composition fails for me in a few ways.

Primarily because the important parts of the "message", if you will, are just overpowered

by

the support. Here the delicacy of the branches in the water, as well as the beautiful

reflections of the trees on the reflected hill and the out of focus skeletons of the

foreground are lost as our eye is pulled out of frame because the white is not contained.

How or if it can be contained is a matter for the photographer to decide, as is even if it is

important to him. But this is what makes this photo just a photo for me,

what

keeps it from going beyond subject and becoming more than just a pretty picture.

When I first saw this, I was excited. The kind of image that I love and I opened it and just

couldn't get going with it. I looked at the portfolio, probably 10 times now, and still

nothing.

 

My mentor was Minor White and his work, which was a push beyond the work of Steiglitz

and Edward Weston in this genre, and those that followed him like Paul Caponigro (not

John Paul!) Carl Chiarenza and all just give me great excitement when I look at their work.

Here I wasn't finding the excitement, just the elements that they might have shot.

 

Then I noticed the Michael Kenna similarities. Again, the elements but not the excitement

those images stimulate.

 

This image is technically well done. I have no complaints with this or with most of the

portfolio, but I am left feeling that instead of the excitement of a zen riddle, I am left with

a beautiful Bell that just doesn't resonate.

Marc's point about showing only finished work is a

good one. Most stylists try to show their finished work--it is all about credibility. Sure

you might want to see the "raw" shot, but if you work with, or even talk to,

most makeup artists, you know pretty quick how good they are! And you rarely hire an

unknown stylist for the most important jobs--you try them out on tests. You also get

great ones you don't know through referral from people you respect and can rely on in the

industry. In this case, anyway, we are not being shown the image by the makeup artist,

but by the photographer and that is what is important here.

 

Also, just back to my original point here. There will always be touch up, but it shouldn't

have to be rebuilding the makeup. The shine on the upper lip, on the skin, should be

retouched, as possibly should be the one below the lower lip etc. But these are minor and

probably should have been done before this image was posted. But this might not be the

makeup, or it might be that the model pursed her mouth in such a way the moisture or

gloss got on the skin--not visible while shooting. You don't trash a shot just because of

these nits, they are too easily fixed in PS! In fact, if I was shooting and saw these, but had

a rhythm going with the model, I would not break it for such a small thing--that is one of

the calls you have to make as the photographer-- you weigh the options.

OK, So reading all of this a few things came to mind.

 

First, the comment "what the photographer's role is in presenting her work to prospective

clients. How do they know where the makeup ends and the PS skills start?" really caught

my attention. The reality is that you don't need to address any of it with the client. The

client only wants to know that the image can be created within the budget allotted.

 

The photographer is like the director/producer of a movie. They are responsible for hiring

the "right" people to get a job done, which might include makeup artists and retouchers. I

think this website might be instructional in answering this question. http://

www.amydresser.com/retouch.html (Wait for the images to fully download and then roll

your mouse over the photo to see the before shot.) This type of work is the norm in

almost all commercial work these days--even landscape work.

 

 

 

 

second, the photo is not necessarily my favorite of Elena's, but it is competently done. In

fact, as compared to most of the "glamour/fashion" work I have seen on PN it pretty much

exceeds all others as to the styling, which is essential in this type of work. The makeup is

applied well for this setting, the hair is done well and the feathers blend very well with the

hair--essentially everything is in it's place. Whether you like the styling or not seems to

be more a matter of taste than execution. That does not mean that there are not a few

things that should be retouched--one example is the white spots(chapped skin?) at center

of lips below

septum, but at least this isn't a major overhaul. ( Just a note, Elena currently has a shot of

this model in neutral, bright light on her home page. In that shot, this makeup is almost

hideous--just shows that makeup needs to be designed for the shot!)

 

As to lighting, I think this does create a strong mood as I think has been written here, I

find nothing wrong with the technique or the way the image falls off. I might retouch a

few things, but that would largely depend on how big it was going to be used and how

those things read.

 

When there is a model involved, a lot of the success of the shot is in how you relate to the

model. This is not only how the model is posed and her energy, but also how you

psycologically respond to the personality you are seeing. From the 3 shots I have seen of

this model, I would rank her about average, which is not very good for this type of work--

seems a bit too tentative. Sometimes the photographer can't get more from the model.

 

The problem with this type of shot is that we want to compare it to what we have seen in

magazines or whereever. What we have to remember is that a shot like this done for a

major makeup company would easily have a budget in the range of $50,000-100,000 US,

which would include retouching (and maybe not even the model's fees) Half of the budget

would

be the photographer's creative fee and the rest would be the expenses--multiple

assistants and stylists-probably 3 stylists on a shot like this-hair/makeup/props--a

fourth would be added if there was wardrobe. The props stylist might have 3 or 4 days in

shopping for the "right" feathers. These props might have to be made. The budget would

also include a retoucher like the one above to take the photo beyond what can be done in

camera. Sometimes work is done by someone the photographer hires and more is done

by the client. So my point is that when we see a shot like this, let's have some perspective

as to what we are judging it against.

 

Overall, I think Elena is doing nice work in her niche--beginning model photographer--

and better than most I see out there. Her portfolio has some very well done shots and

others that probably compromise those better ones--still good, but not up to that level.

So the question would be where do you want to go and are you willing to make the

changes to get there.

First, I don't know that I agree with all of Marc's analysis, so I will just stay with comments

on this photo.

 

When I first saw this, I didn't like it much. I looked again and something called to me.

Here was this organic thing, a plant, and it had been transformed into a kind of petri dish

germ. Of course much of this feel was contributed by the blue/green lighting. So I

thought, wow, maybe this guy is onto something interesting--so I went to the portfolio.

Well, I was pretty disappointed. There was not one other photo there that seemed to have

the feel of this one at all. So, I was just left with the kind of feeling and wonder if this was

just a mistake that he thought looked cool or what!

 

I know this sounds harsh, but the principal is the difference between creating art and, as

Marc referred to it in his early post, decorative work. I have a tendancy to look for the

artist and the portfolio has many glimpses of original work and thought, but the

developed work is a bit more expected and cliche. There is nothing wrong with producing

work like that, it can sell very well, but a well done and thought out series, like the POW,

could be incredible and sellable and elevate the status of the creator as an artist.

Why are all the best photos never on top?

 

This photo is very nice and shows some vision. It is easily, although I looked quickly, the nicest in your portfolio. This is not something most would see and you did it wonderfully from site to execution.

Desaturate this and it would, except for a few things that are modern, look like a 1950's pinup photo. Not particularly well done, but all the important things up front.